Updated answer:
The problem with my original answer, as pointed out in the comments by @jpm, is the behavior at the boundaries. Python 3 makes this even more difficult since it uses "bankers" rounding instead of "old school" rounding. However, in looking into this issue I discovered an even better solution using the decimal
library.
import decimal
def round_up(x, place=0):
context = decimal.getcontext()
# get the original setting so we can put it back when we're done
original_rounding = context.rounding
# change context to act like ceil()
context.rounding = decimal.ROUND_CEILING
rounded = round(decimal.Decimal(str(x)), place)
context.rounding = original_rounding
return float(rounded)
Or if you really just want a one-liner:
import decimal
decimal.getcontext().rounding = decimal.ROUND_CEILING
# here's the one-liner
float(round(decimal.Decimal(str(0.1111)), ndigits=2))
>> 0.12
# Note: this only affects the rounding of `Decimal`
round(0.1111, ndigits=2)
>> 0.11
Here are some examples:
round_up(0.022499999999999999, 2)
>> 0.03
round_up(0.1111111111111000, 2)
>> 0.12
round_up(0.1111111111111000, 3)
>> 0.112
round_up(3.4)
>> 4.0
# @jpm - boundaries do what we want
round_up(0.1, 2)
>> 0.1
round_up(1.1, 2)
>> 1.1
# Note: this still rounds toward `inf`, not "away from zero"
round_up(2.049, 2)
>> 2.05
round_up(-2.0449, 2)
>> -2.04
We can use it to round to the left of the decimal as well:
round_up(11, -1)
>> 20
We don't multiply by 10, thereby avoiding the overflow mentioned in this answer.
round_up(1.01e308, -307)
>> 1.1e+308
Original Answer (Not recommended):
This depends on the behavior you want when considering positive and negative numbers, but if you want something that always rounds to a larger value (e.g. 2.0449 -> 2.05, -2.0449 -> -2.04) then you can do:
round(x + 0.005, 2)
or a little fancier:
def round_up(x, place):
return round(x + 5 * 10**(-1 * (place + 1)), place)
This also seems to work as follows:
round(144, -1)
# 140
round_up(144, -1)
# 150
round_up(1e308, -307)
# 1.1e308